Dear Sir,

The response to my philosophical objections to the Texas Parks and Wildlife Department's "Safe Harbor" Central Texas Habitat Conservation Plan has been quite interesting. I write a column for the Mason County News called "Fanning the Flames." In my column I have written about abortion, homosexual marriages in the church, evolution and other socially controversial issues without ever receiving any unfriendly responses.

This golden cheek warbler issue must be incredibly sensitive, as I've drawn criticism from contributors to three publications: Livestock Weekly, Mason County News, and San Angelo Standard Times. I love the give and take of this debate. What a wonderful way for the people of Central Texas to learn about such a critical issue. After all, in our system of government, sovereignty resides in the people, and for the people to obtain good government they must become well informed on the issues of the day.

Also, as a member of the Texas Farm Bureau, I think it's great that the membership is getting a chance to review decisions of the leadership before being presented with a "done deal." After all, the strength of the Farm Bureau is in its grassroots organization.

My greatest concern with the proposed "Safe Harbor" plan is that the voluntary portion of the plan represents the bait which will trip the unseen trap: a thorough and rigid enforcement of the Endangered Species Act throughout all of Central Texas.

Proponents of the "Safe Harbor" plan warn that we will be better able to deal with the ESA through this voluntary initiative, but I don't see how we will be better off with state and federal biologists roaming around Central Texas cataloging supposed endangered species and their critical habitat.

The plan will probably be of at least temporary benefit to those who volunteer, but what will happen to the volunteer's neighbors? Perhaps the plan should require that "volunteers" build privacy fences around their ranches to shield their non-volunteering neighbors' ranches from the roving eyes of wildlife biologists and federal bureaucrats.

I suspect that in the end, the "Safe Harbor" program will be about as voluntary as our income tax system. You can volunteer to comply, or you can volunteer to have your property plundered as you are carted off to jail. I'm sure that those who worked so earnestly to amend our Constitution to allow for the income tax system had good intentions, but such is often the way of good-intentioned government programs.

In closing, the issue at hand reminds me of a biblical account in which King Hezekiah of Judah (the property owner), after receiving a gift (a "Safe Harbor" payoff) from the King of Babylon (the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service), showed that king (or his servants, the biologists) all that was in his kingdom (ranch). The prophet Isaiah asked Hezekiah what the king of Babylon had seen. Hezekiah replied, "They have seen all that is in my house; there is nothing among my treasures that I have not showed them." Isaiah (property rights activist) then prophesied that in the days of Hezekiah's sons, "... all that is in your house, and what your fathers have accumulated until this day shall be carried to Babylon; nothing shall be left." Hezekiah responded that Isaiah's prediction was good because, "At least there will be peace and truth in my days." I hope and pray that we, the property owners of today, do not sell our childrens' future just to avoid the hassles of standing up for what is right.

Michael Leamons
Vice President,
Hill Country Heritage Association,
Mason, Texas

Dear Sir,

I enjoyed your short news story on the use of pepper spray in discouraging grizzly bear attacks in our various national forests. I would like to suggest that this theory needs a great deal more research in order to prove its effectiveness. Our federal government seems determined to test every new product to make sure that it is effective for the use intended. With that in mind, I would like to nominate Interior Secretary Bruce Babbitt and Vice President Al Gore to fully and effectively test this new concept.

Should the attrition rate on those performing the tests prove too high, I am sure other names could be put forward by other ranchers, loggers, etc. that would be acceptable. I'm not sure we have enough grizzley bears to fully test this concept!? Oh well, with tongue in cheek, it was a pleasant although fleeting thought. We'd best keep some humor or life will become so drab as to be unbearable.

Keep up the good work.

Tom Payne
Santa Rosa, NM